Page images
PDF
EPUB

Apostles, no text of the New Testament can be adduced in support of it.

Mr. Edgeworth has again adverted to, and given us, according to his views, a sketch of the ancient discipline of the Secret, which was introduced by Mr. Brown. He complains that I seemed to have my mind perfectly closed against the arguments adduced from this source by his Rev. friend, and this conclusion he draws, I suppose, from the fact, that I have not latterly referred to the subject. My reason, however, was this; first of all, I had referred to the discipline, as I thought, sufficiently yesterday; and secondly, it is in my judgment quite a minor point in the controversy. I take, as I said before, the testimony of the "oracles of God" above the discipline of secresy in the early church, or any other discipline. I wish to stand by what that word says, notwithstanding all the arguments that may be urged against us; for, be it remembered, that it is actually throwing dust into the people's eyes to refer them to the huge folios of the Fathers. How is a poor man ever to discover what he is to believe? Our opponents will tell him that Cyril, Theodoret, and Augustine said so and so, and I can tell him that they and others said quite another thing. It may be well for learned men to investigate this subject, who have the means of coming at the real truth by a diligent examination of the evidence in question; but how is a poor unlettered man to decide, if he is to be guided by testimony similar to this-if such is to be the rule by which he is to form his belief? We have the Bible, blessed be God! in our own language at the present day, and the prophet says

"To the LAW rather, and to THE TESTIMONY; and if they speak not according to this word, they shall not have the morning light."-Isa. viii. 20.

Be not bound then by the testimony of men, however valuable it may be in its place. They were at the best fallible, and most of you can never authenticate the evidence adduced from them, because most people are not in a capacity or situation to refer to those huge and immense folios; but you all can refer to THE BIBLE, and judge you this day on which side the powerful testimony of the word of God has been found in this matter.

The Rev. Gentleman asks me to tell when the discipline of the Secret began. I am unable to connect this with the question of the truth or falsehood of Transubstantiation, or

the Sacrifice of the Mass. Did I think it a matter of material consequence at present, I might show that, while Mr. E.'s attempt to prove it from the Scriptures is indeed futile, its origin may perhaps be traced to the second century; but, at all events, as the question was not started on our side, but on that of our opponents, as tending, in their estimation, to corroborate their doctrine, the onus rested with them to prove when it began, not with us.

The question of the alleged idolatry connected with the Mass, has been introduced once more, and Mr. Edgeworth has, like Mr. Brown, endeavoured to retort the subject of uncertainty on me. On this, however, I feel it quite unnecessary to dwell more, notwithstanding the wish of my opponent that I should give a portion of my time to it. I have, already, I conceive, spoken sufficiently on the subject, and corroborated my statement by a reference to the history of Israel, in the case of the golden calf; and, whatever else might be said, I am now content to let my previous statements go before the public, in connection with the distinctions drawn by the Rev. Gentleman on the other side.

Mr. Edgeworth, in treating again of the Fathers and ancient Liturgies, has come to an old practice, yet one which I do not regard as very strong in an argument upon any doctrine. He asks me to tell him, if the sacrifice of the Mass did not exist in the Apostles' days, when it began to be celebrated. Why, Sir, if I were not able to tell Mr. Edgeworth when the sacrifice of the Mass was first instituted, or Transubstantiation first introduced, (I do not enter beyond what I have already stated, into the question whether I could, or could not, point out the exact era of their commencement,) but what I say is, If I were unable to give the precise date of their first institution, I cannot at all see what that has to do with the question of their truth or falsehood. I contend that my inability to point out the exact beginning of any doctrine (supposing such inability to exist,) would not prove that doctrine necessarily to be true? You recollect the details of one of the parables uttered by our Lord, which teaches us that it was when men slept that the tares were sown. We might, therefore, as legitimately argue that the tares were not sown, because the precise time at which that took place could not be told, as for Mr. Edgeworth to argue that Transubstantiation, and the sacrifice of the Mass, must be true, if we were unable to point out the precise era at which they were first started.

But in reference to my statement, that I could trace the doctrine of Transubstantiation, even in its rudest shape, no higher than the period of the beginning of the Eutychian heresy in the fifth century, he asks me, have I forgotten Ignatius, and others, who flourished before the fifth century? No, Sir, I have not forgotten Ignatius, nor the others. I thought that I had disposed of their testimony already. Mr. Edgeworth quoted from Ignatius, and Justin Martyr, but I asserted at the time that neither Ignatius nor Justin Martyr went a step farther than I could go. They simply call the elements " flesh and blood," and declare the bread to be no longer common bread, and the wine to be no longer common wine. Would not a Protestant willingly use such language? As I said in my last speech yesterday, we use these terms in the Communion Service of the Church of England. Therefore these testimonies of Ignatius and others, do not bear on the real point in dispute; they assert nothing more than the Church of England asserts at this day; and, in both cases, though the terms "flesh and blood" are used, the language, we contend, involves nothing beyond the real' spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

6

Before I proceed to give an outline of the arguments we have employed, I must notice one assertion made by Mr. Edgeworth, in his summary of the Roman Catholic arguments. When speaking of the 11th chapter of 1st Corinthians, he ventured to affirm that no answer had been given to the text in that chapter where the Apostle speaks of their not discerning the Lord's body.' He asks, how St. Paul could speak of discerning it, if it were not there? I beg to remind Mr. Edgeworth that his argument deduced from this passage was answered,-I do not say to his satisfaction,-but an answer was given by Mr. Lyons, in his speech the day before yesterday. However, I will just say a word again upon the passage, as he did not seem to be satisfied. In the first place, it strikes me that the Apostle does not mean to call upon communicants to discern, in a literal sense, the body of the Lord; but the expression not discerning,' (μǹ diakρivwv) means 'not making a difference,' as to the body of the Lord. I shall prove this by a parallel passage where the same term is used. In the 15th chap. Acts, verses 8, 9, St. Peter thus speaks in the council at Jerusalem:

[ocr errors]

"God, who knoweth the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto them (the Gentiles) the Holy Ghost as well as to us (the Jews). And put no difference (ovdèv diékpive) between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith."

Here is one instance out of several in which the same expression occurs in the original; and I maintain that this is the meaning of the text in Corinthians-" not discerning the Lord's body" -NOT MAKING A DIFFERNCE between ordinary bread and that which had been consecrated as the figure of Christ's body; not looking upon the elements as changed in their use, though not in their nature. And this was the very fault into which the Corinthians had fallen, because, as we learn from the context, they had abused the Lord's Supper, and had not regarded the bread and wine as being applied to sacred purposes, and being no longer common bread and common wine. Moreover, I may remind you also of that on which Mr. Lyons insisted-how does a Roman Catholic discern the body of the Lord in the Eucharist? It will be confessed that he cannot discern it literally: and if he cannot, the passage proves nothing for him. It is only by faith he can discern it, and we, in like manner, discern by faith the spiritual presence of our Lord and Saviour with "the faithful in the Lord's Supper."

[ocr errors]

Want of time, Sir, now prevents my entering further into the subject before us. In drawing, therefore, to a close, I would endeavour, so far as I have opportunity, to offer a few remarks by way of summing up.

THE TWO SUBJECTS which have been discussed during the last three days have been, the Bodily Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the Sacrifice of the Mass.

66

In support of the former, the sixth chapter of St. John was adduced on the other side, where our Lord said, Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you;' and other texts of similar import in that chapter were dwelt on. To this we replied, as you will remember that the onus rested on our opponents before they could make use of that chapter, to prove that there was a reference at all in it to the Sacrament; and I noticed the opinions of certain Roman Catholic divines, who, upon the authority of Cardinal Bellarmine, admitted that there was no such reference. It was then shewn you that our Lord must have spoken figuratively or spiritually, and not literally, because if he had enjoined the literal partaking of his body and blood, he would have been enjoining a practice contrary to a precept of the Mosaic law; whereas we know, according to the testimony of Scripture, that he came "not to destroy the law,

but to fulfil it." It was shown further that, if Roman Catholics take this passage in a strictly literal sense, "Except you eat, &c. and drink his blood, &c.," upon their own principles, the laity would be lost, because the laity do not, strictly speaking, drink the blood, however they may receive the flesh. The real meaning was pointed out from the 35th verse of the chapter, and that meaning appeared to be that by the terms "eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ," the act of believing upon Christ was denoted. We saw that constantly such figures are used to express faith; and, in this connection, I noticed how Christ employed the terms "coming, looking, eating, drinking," &c. not to denote the literal act, but the believing upon him; and it appeared that Christ gave the key to the whole in the 64th verse, when he said, "The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."

[ocr errors]

The words of the Institution were then brought forward "This is my body, this is my blood." Our opponents insisted that they should be taken literally we insisted that they should be taken figuratively. The reasons why we urged this figurative interpretation were these:1st. That the figurative interpretation was according to the general analogy of Scripture language. We referred to such passages as "That rock was Christ;" "This hair is Jerusalem;" and a variety of others of a parallel kind, which shewed that this figurative mode of expression was quite common among the Jews at that time, and, therefore, that the Apostles were quite prepared to understand the words of the Institution in a figurative sense. Then, 2ndly, it was shewn that this figurative mode of expression was in accordance with the general mode of speaking in all languages: for, as was remarked, it is quite common for us, in speaking of pictures or maps, to say, "This is such a person;" or "This-speaking of a map is such a country;" though we only mean by the term "is" that it “ represents." Furthermore, Srdly, we pointed out that the figurative interpretation was according to the context, because, as our friends on the other side confessed, "This cup is the New Testament in my blood," was to be understood figuratively. I observed that if they interpreted one part figuratively, I was justified in interpreting the other figuratively; and that the inconsistency rested with them, as interpreting one part literally and the other figuratively. Moreover, the passage in the 1st Epistle to the Corin

« PreviousContinue »